Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and this legislation. I am in awe of the fact that there are so many lawyers in the House. I am not a lawyer, but I have had the honour of defending cases - 37 on one occasion - against me in the High Court. I won and the State appealed that decision against me to the Supreme Court. It was a long time ago and I doubt that anyone who is around would remember that situation in 1971, but I won the case in the Supreme Court on the basis of discrimination on grounds of religion. The Minister would be interested to know that a statutory instrument was used to ban the sale of meat, yet excluded the selling of meat killed using the kosher method. I remembered from my college days that discrimination on grounds of religion was unconstitutional. I do not remember the delay lasting for longer than two years, but that the current delays are even longer has reminded me of the importance of this situation, particularly for small to medium-sized enterprises, SMEs. They should get speedy resolutions.

I welcome the Bill, the words used by the Minister and the court of appeal, but I will touch on a matter that has not received quite the same attention, namely, the Seanad's role in the formation of legislation, resulting in a lesser burden on the courts. The Bill refers to changes in the Bill "if the Seanad were to be abolished". The Bill contains many references to the Seanad and demonstrates how the Constitution is being butchered through the Government's determination to get rid of the Seanad. The public should be aware that the Constitution would be significantly changed and besmirched were Seanad abolition to come to pass. I do not believe that it will be abolished, and I was delighted to hear Senators state today that they would vote "Yes" on this referendum but "No" on Seanad abolition. The argument has been made that we would be better off with a new Constitution, given the fact that there could be 75 changes to it were the Seanad to be abolished.

It is somewhat illogical that the Government is going ahead with more oversight through this court while doing away with another crucial element of oversight in our society, namely, this House. Our court system protects the rights of citizens. The Seanad also plays a part in that vital process. For example, it has made more than 500 improvements to legislation through amendments in recent years. This fact poses a concern. Other Members should consider that, had we not made these improvements, it is more likely that people's rights would have been infringed upon. Consequently, it is more likely that they would have sought recourse in the courts.

The Seanad's role in the formation of legislation results in better legislation and reduces the likelihood of a burden on the courts at a later date. In a nutshell, the Seanad makes legislation more watertight. The Construction Contracts Bill 2010, which we passed yesterday, sets down in primary legislation surety of payment to construction subcontractors with the express intention of reducing the burden on the courts.

Surely, in discussing the aim to reduce the burden on our court system, through a new court of appeal, we should acknowledge the crucial role of the Seanad in the area of oversight of legislation. We should also give consideration to the importance of speed.

I welcome the moves being made by the Minister to help clear the backlog in our courts and to bring them up to date and ensure they are fit for purpose within the next year. Currently, the Supreme Court is unable to filter out all but cases of exceptional constitutional and public importance, resulting in a waiting list of up to four years. Supreme courts in other countries hear a limited amount of cases each year. We must move with the times. The writers of the 1937 Constitution could not have foreseen the explosion of litigation we now have.

I often use the analogy of the customer and do so again. There needs to be a better service for customers to allow their cases be held more quickly. It was interesting to hear Mrs. Justice Susan Denham point to Ireland's international standing as regards the rule of law, which encompasses judicial independence and an effective court system. She said a strong rule of law "propels prosperity". This is an important consideration for business people and investors when deciding to do business in a country. In particular, delays on appeal from the commercial court in the High Court may impact on the wider economy. Mrs. Justice Denham referred to the fact that the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve often stated that the rule of law is the single most important contributor to economic growth. This is not something I thought of previously, but it is a reminder of why we need to get behind this legislation. I support the Minister on this and wish him every success with it in the referendum.